fail to
erect metal detectors or to check the ex-husband for firearms at the courthouse,

post no
warnings about the lack of security in the courthouse,

fail to
offer any added protection for the woman at the courthouse, and
then

disclaim
any responsibility for setting up the conditions that enabled the ex-husband
to shoot the defenseless woman in cold blood, right in front of their
young daughter, inside the courthouse?

Isn’t it
immoral or crazy to position an unarmed woman in a confined space with a man
who has repeatedly and credibly threatened to kill her, and then fail to either
check the man for weapons or to offer her added protection? The California
Supreme Court’s recent unanimous decision in Zelig v.County of Los
Angeles says it’s legally just fine. The Zelig
Court proclaimed loudly and clearly:

* "It is
well established that public entities generally are not liable for failing
to protect individuals against crime."

* "The
public entities and their policymaking officers and employees are immune
from liability for any failure on their part to provide sufficient police
services."

No Duty,
No Protection

Lawyers for the
dead woman’s estate argued strongly that the government owed legal duties
and should be liable. The defendant county government had created a dangerous
situation by compelling the woman to attend the courthouse, by forbidding
the woman from carrying a defensive sidearm, and by failing to warn her that
she was practically undefended there. The police had tape recordings and documents
proving the ex-husband had issued the death threats, but they failed to offer
extra protection for her. The superior court itself knew the ex-husband posed
such danger that it formally ordered him to disarm himself, but the courthouse
had no metal detectors and did not check the ex-husband for weapons.

The California
Supreme Court addressed each of these arguments and rejected them all. The
Second Amendment apparently wasn’t asserted. Showing no sorrow or regret,
the Zelig Court noted how “gun control” laws had disarmed
the victim: "the state, by enacting a general statute prohibiting possession
of a firearm in any courthouse, curtailed her ability to arm herself in self-defense."
The woman had no civil right to self-defense, however.

Bottom
line: the government can disarm you, knowingly put you in danger without even
a warning, refuse and fail to protect you from the known danger ... and get
off scot-free when the danger harms or kills you.

Readers of Dial
911 and Die: The Shocking Truth About the Police Protection Myth would
have fully expected the Zelig ruling to come down as it did. Citing
laws and cases from every state, the book shows that the government generally
owes no legal duty to protect citizens, and the courts routinely insulate
the government from liability.

Worthless
Laws

The Zelig
case illustrates how "gun control" ideas endanger lives:

* Fifteen day
waiting period on sidearm purchases -- worthless.

* Law forbidding
civilians to possess firearms in courthouse -- only stopped the victim,
not the perpetrator.

* Court order
that forbade ex-husband from possessing firearms -- didn’t stop him
when he wanted to kill.

* Sign proclaiming
law against civilian possession of firearms in courthouses -- advertised
where defenseless victims could be found.

* Law that immunizes
government entities and officials if they fail to protect threatened citizens
– means government agents have less incentive to protect victims.

* Concealed
carry permit system that registers gun owners with the government -- worthless
in courthouses that forbid all civilian firearms possession.

Zelig
is only the latest court case proving that governments don’t accept
the responsibility for the harm caused by "gun control" laws that
disarm the victims and empower the killers. Laws and court decisions in almost
all states take the same route.

You can seize
the opportunity to prove the dangerous evil of "gun control" ideas
in all states by getting copies of Dial 911 and Die. For nearly every
state and territory, there is a chapter in Dial 911 and Die that
shows how the government makes no promise to protect individual citizens from
criminal attack, even when the attacker is known and the threats are imminent.
The anti-gunners cannot answer this argument ... it’s the law... and
it makes civilian disarmament policies look both foolish and deadly.